Western History during the Last 60 Years in Korea: Retrospect and Prospect Byung-Jik AHN This paper aims to present an outlook on the overall development of the Korean studies of Western History from its beginning to the present. At first, it surveys generations of scholars, academic journals and organizations, research trends etc., by dividing the whole period into three phases: the early formative stage of modern historical studies of Western History from 1945 through to the 1970s, the period of growth in the 1980s and in the early 1990s, and the phase of a great advance from the late 1990s. This paper examines not only the accomplishments of the Korean scholarship of Western History in the last decades but also the problems and issues which it now confronts: first of all, the decrease of scholarly offspring and the lack of communication and cooperation between three parts of historical scholarship in Korea, that is, studies of Korean, Oriental and Western History. Especially, this paper focuses on the recent trend among Korean scholars to criticize the so-called 'Eurocentrism'. On the one hand, this criticism can be affirmatively evaluated as a self-criticism against the tendency of Korean scholars in the past to regard the modern western civilization as universal standard of historical value judgment, and as an attempt to see Western History not from the viewpoints of the West but from "our own". On the other hand, the criticism against the Eurocentrism contains some risks to fall in intellectual fallacies, if it is exaggerated and attempts to see Western History just from "our own viewpoints". Insofar as it is not clear what "our own viewpoints" correctly mean, the criticism against the Eurocentrism can easily degenerate into an argument for the sort of Occidentalism which, according to Edward Said, can be no alternative to the "Orientalism", as it, just like the Orientalism, perverts and distorts our perceptions of research objects. As a way out of this dilemma between the Orientalism and Occidentalism, this paper goes on to argue for one’s "second identity": if one wants to know about a foreign culture, nation, ethnicity etc, one should not regard it as 'the Other' which is categorically different from oneself, but identify with and try to sympathetically understand it.